October Term 2008 · Docket 07-1015
Can high officials face lawsuits for policies they approved?
Plaintiffs sue top officials for supervisory liability. Defendants claim qualified immunity blocks the claims.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
General Garre argued that the Second Circuit did not bar all discovery. He stated the lower court only suggested postponing or limiting it.
Mr. Reinert argued that paragraph 69 of the complaint shows a coherent theory. He claimed the sides that brought the case lack a clear definition of conclusory allegations.
chief_justice_roberts_asked_if_the_policy_was_approved_by_top_officials
Justice Souter questioned whether the case involves more than derivative liability. He cited complaint paragraphs charging willful policy design.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 13-51 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 13-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 25-5 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 25-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 23-3 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 23-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 9-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the standard for pleading claims against senior officials. It asks if a complaint must allege specific personal wrongdoing. It also asks if supervisory liability applies to policy approval.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 3-17
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 10, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 37-39
What each side wants
Plaintiffs want the court to allow supervisory liability claims to proceed. They argue policy approval creates personal responsibility.
Defendants want the court to dismiss the claims. They argue qualified immunity protects them from derivative liability.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 3-17
What each side says
Plaintiffs argue that approving a discriminatory policy constitutes personal participation. They contend this satisfies the pleading standard for liability.
Defendants argue that supervisory liability is not a valid legal theory. They contend that qualified immunity shields them from claims based solely on subordinates' actions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 3-17
What the justices asked
Justice Souter asked if designing a policy includes holding specific groups without penal purpose.
Justice Ginsburg asked if the pleading analysis is discrete under a motion to dismiss standard.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 13-51 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 13-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 25-5 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 25-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 23-3 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 23-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 9-11
Why it matters
This dispute defines the scope of official accountability. It determines whether senior leaders face personal legal exposure for agency policies. It shapes the balance between civil rights enforcement and official immunity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 3-17
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 13-51 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 13-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 25-5 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 25-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 23-3 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 23-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 9-11
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-43 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 3-17
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.